Theos-Talk Archives (March 2003 Message tt00300)

Leon wrote: <<Intuition has nothing to do with 
speculation. To intuit is to know the actual reality of 
what any group of words mean. That is, having a 
direct comprehension of a fundamental truth.>>

In Webster's, intuition means: 1. the immediate 
knowing or learning of something without the 
conscious use of reasoning; instantaneous 
apprehension. 2. something known or learned in this 
way.

But, as I suspect you know (by now, Leon?), there are 
degrees and forms of "knowing" or "exoterizing" that 
may (be generally seen to?) have been derived by way 
of SOME forms of so-called "intuition" or by way of 
an "intuitive process" that's affected by various 
human, karmic and whatever factors, so ... 
"Knowing," itself, on this plane is (as I tend to see it) 
even "at best" generally rather reliant on whatever 
dependent arisings and karma that "knowing" is seen 
as based on, which "basing," in turn, is a form of 
manasic/human coping that, while often seen to be 
"relevant enough," is hardly "exciting fare" for those 
who (like Theosophists?) would transcend karma and 
maya.

So, in other words, in order to become more intuitive, 
one might try speculating occasionally (once every 
blue moon, say ... ^:-^) ---with or without tongue in 
cheek---since, as I see it, the practice of "knowing" (or 
"exoterizing"), if relied on "too exclusively" (whatever 
that might mean individually), might, I suspect, tend 
to create a barrier of some kind (somewhat 
occasionally?) to the kind of "intuitive speculation" 
that might, at times, in turn (or down the road) tend to 
lead to the cultivation of "higher" forms of intuition, 
for those who might be "ready enough" ...

<<Or, as the dictionary defines it, "The act or faculty 
of knowing or sensing without the use of rational 
processes; immediate cognition.">>

Except that "immediate cognition/knowing" can only 
be, at best, as I see it, relative, (karmic/mayavic, as per 
DEPENDENT arisings!), so why get excited about it, 
really (ie, if one is a student of the Esoteric Tradition)? 
Not that "relative things" aren't "relative" and "useful 
enough" for many of us exotericists (like ABC's, 
stoves, refrigerators, cars, houses, and various other 
kinds of models and "useful things"/useful things); 
but/"but," I tend to keep on speculating that there 
might be more to life than dependent arisings, so, 
seeing as I haven't enlightened myself much, so far, 
seems to me that most "plainer," exoteric/knowing" 
paths tend to be kind of suspicious and "too 
dependent," for me---ie, if I were to "know" them "too 
exoterically," in a sense (not that my exoterizing is 
your exoterizing, and vice versa, but ...). So in some 
forms of speculation I tend to see something that 
might be "more sensible," in a way, as that way I might 
feel that I can cultivate "a certain kind" of intuition by 
way of a certain kind of speculation, while at least 
intending to not get too hung up in some aspects of 
"knowing" that might tend to (as I might see it ...) 
possibly somewhat reduce whatever "more direct" 
experiences, opportunities, intuitions there might be 
for me, at some point. Not that ...

<<If you study the SD you will find that in many 
cases, where HPB gives out the esoteric teachings in 
rather obscure terms (from an exoteric literal 
standpoint) -- she says, "The intuitive student will 
know what this means."

Aren't we all intuitive to some extent? So, if you 
admit as much, don't you see what that means with 
respect to the reliability of intuition re exoterics in 
general? Not that the "the intuitive students" don't 
"know" a few things, or many things, and not that 
she's not making a relevant point, but/"but"... what 
with "relevance" being exoteric, to begin with, around 
here, well ... that might be another reason why I tend 
to prefer a kind of middle-of-the-road speculative 
path.

<<(That is why she said to "read between the lines 
and in and around the words.") Thus, "esoteric" refers 
to the fundamental "occult" truths of theosophy -- not 
to their literal interpretation, nor to reasonable or 
unreasonable speculations about them. >>

Yes, BUT (I'll skip the quoted "but," for a change): 
there are "fundamental occult truths of theosophy," 
(or whatever exoteric truths), and then there's the 
non-literal that's beyond fundamentalizing, anyway, 
so...

Then there's intuitionism/intuitionalism (Webster's: 
the doctrine that the reality of perceived objects is 
known by intuition). To me, that kind of doctrinic 
defining tends to suggest that it might tend to be seen 
(by some?) as having skipped "the reality" of 
karma/maya if (as that definition might be interpreted, 
in general?) that "reality" and those "perceived 
objects" and that "known" are seen in an exoteric or 
non-experiential/non-esoteric light---not that I'm 
suggesting that there are particularly "better ways" of 
lighting up esoterics round here, either, on the average, 
but/"but" I tend to wonder and speculate and ...

<<If you truly intuit the esoteric meaning of an 
exoteric statement, then you become consciously 
knowledgeable of a fundamental reality.>>

But that sentence from you, Leon, leaves me 
wondering how you interpret it. For example, you 
qualifed "intuit" with "truly," though earlier you 
wrote: << To intuit is to know the actual reality of 
what any group of words mean. That is, having a 
direct comprehension of a fundamental truth.>> and 
what with your previous statements re "science" and 
Theosophy, well ... I don't know. That is, if you 
basically admit, by using "truly," that "intuitions" in 
general tend to be colored, then, as I see it, you tend to 
be shooting yourself in the foot, or beard, or hat, or 
whatever ... Not that ...

In other words, I tend to be promoting the speculative 
stance that, where exoteric realities are concerned, 
there are only relative truths, dependent arisings, 
conditional reality, so, re that topic, I might prefer 
wording along the lines of:

In exoteric reality there is no direct (ie, no directly 
experienced) esoteric meaning available by ordinary 
intuition or any other means in the sense that the 
exoteric reality of so-called "esoteric meaning" is 
unavoidably synonymous with "exoteric meaning," 
---regardless of what words are used to describe 
it---but that there are ("admittedly," "apparently") 
certain kinds of exoteric explanations (that might be 
called "esoteric," by some, re the implied or stated 
necessity to read such material "between the lines") 
that might be used to suggest a form of meaning or 
reality that (in terms of "higher reality") doesn't lend 
itself to ordinary communication on this plane, as that 
"esoteric reality" is, from the perspective of this plane, 
only "understandable" by direct experience of it.

<<Speculation is only useful when you are testing out 
alternative interpretations for yourself>>

How people in general define "speculation" often 
seems to, or might, limit it's possible uses.

<<-- before you intuit the actual reality (which in 
most cases can only be put down in vague words that 
can only symbolize the true nature of what one can 
picture in the mind and comprehend through the 
"inner" senses)... As they say, one must "feel it in the 
heart." >>

I tend to see those word choices eliciting various 
possible meanings, but <<before you intuit the actual 
reality>> seems to suggest (by "actual") to me a kind 
of exoteric overemphasis, in that the "actual reality" is 
always there, I suspect, and that it's just a matter of 
whether we tune or phase into it or not ... In other 
words, as I tend to see it, "reality" is always "actual," 
but/"but"...

<<No amount of words can explain that esoteric, and 
completely subjective experience.>>

Okay ...

<<Each time one does so, however, is another 
"initiation" on the path to one's individual 
enlightenment. >>

I don't think "one explains" to oneself as much as 
senses re "initiations"(which kinds of sensings might, 
at times, be referred to as forms of intuitive learning ... 
) ...

<< Thus, our inner knowledge -- which we can't talk 
about -- comes as a series of plateaus... Each, an 
awakening at a higher level... Until full enlightenment 
is achieved. >>

In a sense ...

<<Unfortunately, many students reach the first or 
second plateau, think they have comprehended it all, 
and stop their searching to start preaching or teaching 
what they know. That's why some people who say 
they are gurus, and think they know how to help 
others to find themselves or achieve some sort of
effectiveness as a group brotherhood, sometimes reach 
no higher than the lower self that is caught up in the 
astral or the lower mental planes. It's easy to form a 
group of lesser knowledgeable people around such a 
self professed guru. But, the possibility of arriving at 
any sort of higher wisdom, realization of self and 
enlightenment, or effectiveness in helping and 
teaching others, is pretty remote. >>

In a sense ...

<<So, if one constantly refers to the teachings and 
asks the right questions, there's no need to be stuck at 
any level of esoteric knowledge. But, none of
it can come without serious self devised and self 
determined study and effort -- each time anyone 
thinks they have all the answers -- at whatever plateau 
they are on. >>

In a sense ... But if "asking right questions" is relative 
(ie, karmic/mayavic) on this plane, how can they be 
"right," particularly ... Not that ...



<<Only after one reaches the highest level, can they 
turn around and speak directly using the proper words 
to answer anyone's questions at any level of their 
understanding.>>

In a sense ...

<<That's why, the entire Secret Doctrine takes so 
many millions of words on thousands of pages to 
explain to everyone at every level. And, why so "many 
are called but so few are chosen." >>

In a sense ...


>>Therefore, unless one has already been on the path 
in previous lifetimes, and one's karma warrants it -- to 
get all the way through to the top is very tough going, 
and requires deep concentrated study and practice, for 
a long, long time. So, wherever you are, keep on 
plugging. >>

I think I prefer speculating to plugging ... in a sense ...

<<The esoteric is the actual fundamental truth 
(known by the "insiders") that underlies the exoteric 
interpretations of that truth given out for the 
"outsiders." >>

In a sense ... but your your choice of words re "actual 
fundamental truth" tends to seem kind of "too 
exoteric" to me ... And I tend to think that we're all 
"insiders," whether we "know it," or not. Anyway, I'd 
hesitate calling anybody an "outsider."

<<That's why HPB (as well as the Buddha) had to 
hide the esoteric truths behind exoteric "blinds" (or 
misdirection's) in their "public" teaching.
Fortunately, that didn't cover the truth up entirely, but 
told just enough for those students, who were ready 
(or initiated), to intuit the underlying meanings. >>

In a sense ... I suspect that the "blinds" are not so 
much "misdirections" (although, in a sense, they may 
be) as the rather inevitable results of karma and 
exoteric reality, so that they tend to develop whenever 
one tries to "explain" (exoterize) about "esoteric 
reality.

<<Unlike the Buddha, however, who gave his esoteric 
truths directly to his trusted (initiated) disciples -- 
HPB, who was writing publicly for the yet
uninitiated, put many "clues" in the SD (along with 
their blinds) that had to be coupled with other clues 
in Isis Unveiled, as well as tested against the
three fundamental principles. It's an ancient occult 
teaching that "intuition must be tempered by 
reason."" >>

In a sense ... but your choice of words, tone re such as 
your use of "reason" (thinking back on your ABC's, 
etc) tends to get me speculating about the nature of 
your approach re esoterics.

<<Unfortunately, in some of the original scriptures 
(where the difference between esoteric and exoteric 
was not very great) -- which were later doctored even 
further by the power or money hungry priests -- some 
of those blinds turned into downright misleading lies. 
So, there's nothing like getting the original teachings 
directly from the horses mouth. That allows us
to apply our intuition and our reason simultaneously 
-- with good assurance that what we come up with is 
as close to the truth as one can get. Although,
until we actually experience it, it remains nothing 
more than a speculation. And, exoteric at that, if you 
try to explain it to others. :-)>>

Again, in a sense ... but your choice of words, tone re 
such as your use of "directly from the horses mouth" 
(thinking back on your ABC's, etc) tends to get me 
speculating about the nature of your approach re 
esoterics.

<<Sure, one's karma has to do with whether or not 
one is ready to receive the esoteric truths. But One 
can change karma by an act of will or an inner vow. 
For example, the Tibetan Saint, Milarepa, was -- as 
the result of all his past karma -- an evil Magician, 
thief and mass murderer in his early days. But, when, 
in mid-life, he realized his errors and decided to seek 
enlightenment, he went through a long and arduous 
search to find a guru, and when he finally did, he 
studied and practiced with much personal suffering 
until he found the ultimate truth, became enlightened, 
and eventually a great leader and teacher. All that 
was his karma. But, by finding his conscience and 
choosing to initiate himself and suffer his punishment 
by spending many years or laborious torture as a
slave to his guru, Tilopa -- and, with a willingness to 
face a horrible death -- he was finally able to 
completely transcend his bad karma. He is considered 
by Tibetans, as the only Buddhist Master to have 
achieved enlightenment in one lifetime. The only 
reason he could have had to endure this, was that he 
"intuited" the esoteric truth that awakened his 
conscience, and knew he had to spend years of 
suffering to compensate for and balance out all his 
past bad karma, along with continuous silent inner 
meditation and constant self questioning -- until he 
found his real "Master" within his own self. And, then 
went on to become Abbot of the Monastery -- 
spending the rest of his life healing, helping, and 
teaching others to find their enlightenment.>>>

In a sense ... but/"but" ...

<<By the way (not to think that I've been jerking your 
chain too hard :-) if we want to get down to it, my 
theory of ABC could be considered as nothing more 
than a speculation. But, for me, eventually, it became 
more and more a reality -- since it answers all of the 
hard questions of science that no other scientific 
theory can answer. And, to boot, it's also entirely 
consistent with theosophical metaphysics as taught in 
the SD. That's what the scientific side of the 
theosophical synthesis is all about. Once you have 
that, the rest is easy to derive -- so long as you keep in 
mind the fundamental principles. Can't stress how 
important they are as a reference point for all further 
speculation -- until you arrive at an unassailable 
truth, and create in yourself a firm conviction that 
eliminates all the false presumptions. >>

In a sense ... but/"but" ...

<<... sometimes jerking your chain a bit with tongue in 
cheek </:^)> >>

^:-^)

<<So why not stop spinning your wheels, and start 
looking inward to find out what you have to do and 
what you have to learn to become released from your 
karma... And begin thinking about the esoteric 
actualities as well as finding the words to speak about 
them directly in proper relation to the exoteric 
world, as well as posing the right questions that might 
lead toward higher plateaus of learning and self 
awareness. Or do you want to go on scratching 
your head till the cows come home? :-) <<

I could say the same kind of thing to you ... So I guess 
I might as well say it: Do you want to go on 
scratching your head and ABCing till the cows come 
home? ^:-^)

Speculatively,
Mauri

PS Sorry about all those but/"but's," but/"but" I don't 
see how I can honestly enough avoid those all that 
much, (seeing as this seems to be an unmoderated list, 
to begin with ... ), what with the way things are on this 
plane and seeing as I seem to want to go on 
speculating in my peculiar way.